The phrase 'limited decline, unlimited rise' depends on the situation, based on my own blood and tears history: it is false. At first, I also had an iron head. At that time, it was still the era of modifying Bitcoin source code, having independent wallets and mining pools for each coin - you could really run a coin from code to block, and even deceive a group of people to join QQ groups to mine. But my personal experience tells me that the "decline" of coins is not linear, it is a "trust collapse". When the price drops, there will be fewer believers. As the number of believers decreases, the depth of transactions diminishes. If the depth is gone, the exchange will be delisted. After being taken down, the development team stopped maintenance. Nodes are becoming fewer and fewer, resulting in poorer profits for miners. Miners continue to withdraw - until the last miner goes offline. At that point, you can't even do blockchain transfers without saying 'whether it's going up or not': there are no reliable node broadcasts, no computing power confirmations, no liquidity pricing, and the string of numbers in your hand is only 'self comforting'. So many people think that "zeroing" means price zeroing, but in fact, it is more common: The trading venue is gone → technical maintenance has stopped → the basic functions of the chain are dead → the actual value is reduced to zero first. The reason why many people believe in Huang Tianwei, who ran away, comes from the fact that during the Bitcoin era, he was the only one who did not take down altcoins. Even though these altcoins had a daily transaction volume of tens of thousands of yuan, he still tried to let a new team take over the old altcoins. Therefore, many altcoin players survived the bull market in 2017. But there were also many who believed in his character, causing him to run away with the money. The real risk is not a sharp drop, but after a sharp drop - you find that you no longer even have the action of "selling". Nowadays, although many projects are parasitic on public chains such as ETH and SOL, if public chains do not die, they can transfer funds on the blockchain without technically resetting. But the underlying logic has not changed: once confidence liquidity maintenance availability begins to collapse, it is not a question of "how much it has fallen", but a question of "whether it still exists". For example, compared to the original chain. In recent days, there have always been people telling stories about Zhihu's "Buy BTC for 6000 yuan, don't read for five years" - answering the call with a long clip. In 2011, I answered that I remember something happened in Mentougou and it fell to around 2 dollars. The novelist, with a deposit of 13w, can probably buy 10000 of them, and in 2017, BTC was about 3000-4000 dollars higher than when the original chain was issued. But if a person could really achieve the goal of "buying BTC and not looking at it for five years" in 2011, then they don't actually need to post another "better than the original chain". Even if driven by an experimental mindset and curiosity, it is unlikely to end up near zero with extremely low trading volume (as evidenced by the prices/volumes provided by some market stations). Fact has proven that without prophets, there are no beggars. The so-called 'prophecy' narrative is more of a survivor story. The market will not give you a "unlimited rise" pass just because you once wrote a golden sentence.